Do You Really Need 4 GB of RAM to Type a Letter?

The recent decision by the German parliament to consider a move back to typewriters may serve as a lesson, not only in the need for secure products, but also in the dangers of overdesign.

The recent decision by the German parliament to consider a move back to typewriters may serve as a lesson, not only in the need for secure products, but also in the dangers of overdesign.

The German story came to light recently when that country's parliament, frightened by recent security breaches, began looking at ways of preventing leaks from computer hardware. Its move was preceded only days earlier by a similar decision by Russian officials.

In truth, their concerns aren't much different from those of countless manufacturers and power plant operators. Even automobiles are now at risk; a computer security conference recently offered $10,000 to any attendee who could hack into the electronics of a Tesla Model S.

The stories raise a simple question: Are products being over-teched? Could it be that we don't really need 64-bit processors, 4 GB of RAM, and Internet access to drive a car or type a letter?

Swintec Corp. still makes and sells typewriters. Its 2640CC is a word processor offering up to 128K of memory. (Source: Swintec Corp.)

All the stories shed light on a problem that's pervasive in product design: We add capabilities because we can. Economies of scale make it possible to incorporate big memories and high-powered processors. This enables us to access the Internet, run YouTube, play games, waste time, download malware, and endanger security -- all for a relatively low price. The problem is that extra power translates to extra problems, which must be prevented by more layers of complicated software.

In some targeted applications, there's a clear benefit to simpler designs. Typewriters still exist. Some offer surprising capabilities. They can highlight, move, delete, and copy text. They can store documents. For some narrow tasks, they're as effective as a laptop and printer.

@Alvie, fear not, my tongue was firmly in my cheek and I was wondering what reaction I would get. Job done! I am more likely to support the Edward Snowdens and Julian Assanges of this world than hang them.

I DO support the death penalty, but for far more heinous crimes, of the rape / murder / paedophilia ilk. And with a LOT of safeguards to prevent mistakes. Most if not all of the mistakes you read about are due to really bad procedures. I'd also support corporal punishment in schools - the large number idiots you see coming out of the school system now with no respect for anyone or anything are ample proof that it did work.

@David Ashton: Honestly, I was not expecting anyone on EETimes to publicly support death penalty. Actually, I find it very distressful that any person, in this 21th century, even considers it as a problem-solver.

If it is only to write a letter, do we need even a type writer? Before the type writer was extensively used for writing letters and documents, people used to use just pen and paper. Still I enjoy writing by a pen on paper rather than typing. But, thinking practically, you would need to go somewhere to buy an envelope, then you would need to drive to the post office & send the letter and then wait for a reply for 3-5days. Instead, it is a lot convenient sending & receiving on e-mail and now WhatsApp...isn't it? :)

But, the nostalgic part pf my mind says that those paper letters were seemingly more valuable to me than the letters sent in e-mail.

Whatever may be the motive, the decision to go back to the typewriters looks absurd. How can one prevent somebody from using his/her smartphone to scan that typewritten copy and send it across the world using internet?

So we need to think how to make the existing technologu secure and not just run away from from them.

Probably not, because the cell phone ring on your finger will have 4 GB of RAM and will have a full voice interface, if not a direct neural link. At that point we will be pining for the good old days where you could actually see electronics.

Apart from anything else, you get a one-off paper copy of a document, put it in a scanner and ten minutes later it can be all over the internet. Attack the cause, not the symptom. Make security leaks punishable by death and you'll solve the problem. You'll get rid of the first few leakers and the rest will rapidly wind their necks in.